<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (9) TMI 82 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47413</link>
    <description>Excise liability depends on whether processing creates a distinct and marketable commodity under the relevant tariff entry, chapter notes and marketability test. Slitting, re-rolling, trimming and painting of aluminium sheets were not shown on the record to convert aluminium strip under Heading 76.06 into a separate excisable product under sub-heading 7616.90, so duty could not be sustained on that basis. Ownership and the allegation of dummy firms were also treated as relevant factual questions linked to the fragmented processing arrangement, but they did not change the overall result. The departmental appeals were dismissed and the Tribunal&#039;s view was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 82 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47413</link>
      <description>Excise liability depends on whether processing creates a distinct and marketable commodity under the relevant tariff entry, chapter notes and marketability test. Slitting, re-rolling, trimming and painting of aluminium sheets were not shown on the record to convert aluminium strip under Heading 76.06 into a separate excisable product under sub-heading 7616.90, so duty could not be sustained on that basis. Ownership and the allegation of dummy firms were also treated as relevant factual questions linked to the fragmented processing arrangement, but they did not change the overall result. The departmental appeals were dismissed and the Tribunal&#039;s view was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>